Federalist 46: Let's try it again.

[Listening]

Sounds to me he's saying when you are finally fed up with the federal government sticking their nose in your business and trying to run the show, give them a swift kick in the ass.

Nope.

Try again.

If you know it isn't that...then you probably have a thought as to what it is.

This thread was intended to generate some discussion.

Next time, I'll put it in the CDZ where I can flag the likes of FlakeStarkey.

 

[g5000]

Sounds to me he's saying when you are finally fed up with the federal government sticking their nose in your business and trying to run the show, give them a swift kick in the ass.

Nope.

Try again.

If you know it isn't that...then you probably have a thought as to what it is.

This thread was intended to generate some discussion.

Next time, I'll put it in the CDZ where I can flag the likes of FlakeStarkey.

Upon re-reading Bloodrock's post, I think I may have misinterpreted his meaning. I did so because there have been a lot of topics on this forum about secession, and that is not what Madison meant in Federalist 46.

If Bloodrock was not advocating secession and merely stating the obvious, which is to say that the people may at times rise up against a Federal encroachment on their State's rights, then he is absolutely correct. That is exactly what Madison was saying.

In #46, Madison is saying that it is common sense that people are more attached to the local levels of government because the local level is more answerable to their needs, and the local politicians are familiar to them.

He says it is more likely the Federal government will too often reflect the wants and needs of the local levels more than the local governments will be thinking nationally. And he is right on that point, too. Every Representative in Congress is always thinking locally. Always trying to bring the bacon home to their district, and quite frequently at the expense of the nation as a whole. Our ever growing national debt is but one proof of this phenomenon.

But it should also be pointed out that Madison said there will be times when the People decide the federal government will be better suited to run things than their local governments:

If, therefore, as has been elsewhere remarked, the people should in future become more partial to the federal than to the State governments, the change can only result from such manifest and irresistible proofs of a better administration, as will overcome all their antecedent propensities.

Madison is my favorite of the Publius triumvirate.

 

[g5000]

The Founding Fathers were not unaware of the Federalist papers. They considered the Papers when they sweated it out in that long summer when they hammered out the Constitution.

That's a very strange thing to say. The Federalist Papers were not written until after the Constitutional Convention.

 

[Listening]

A bump for Federalist 46:

 

[JakeStarkey]

Sounds to me he's saying when you are finally fed up with the federal government sticking their nose in your business and trying to run the show, give them a swift kick in the ass.

Your post is an example of why we have a Constitutional Republic, and not a democracy, where citizens of the Republic are subject solely to the rule of law, not men; as men are incapable of ruling justly – the ignorant, errant notion that the states may ‘ignore’ the Federal government, the Federal Constitution, and the Federal courts is evidence of that.

Well, you've shown yourself to be someone who thinks he knows a great deal about the Constitution, but in reality knows little.

But...give it a try. Explain what Madison was saying here. Expand the quote if need be. I didn't try to take it out of context.

I'll be waiting.

46 is a reworking from Madison's Virginia Plan, in which the sovereignty of the federal government would maintain its position as long as states understood their subordinate position.

46 follows that meme until Madison drops the relative position of state subordination to the federal government. That is for one of three possible reasons.

(1) Madison was writing to convince anti-Federalists to vote for ratification of the Constitution, so he dropped the subordination clause. If my premise is correct, Madison succeeded: New York vote 30-27 to ratify, one of the very last states to so vote.

(2) Madison may have already been changing his Big State position to a states' right position that would dominate the rest of his political life.

(3) A combination of both.

I think at the same time that a consolidation of the States into one simple republic is not less unattainable than it would be inexpedient. Let it be tried then whether any middle ground can be taken which will at once support a due supremacy of the national authority, and leave in force the local authorities so far as they can be subordinately useful. Virginia Plan

 

[whitehall]

The bottom line is that we can't "try it again" because we were never there. The radical left is so desperate to undermine the Bill of Rights and the Constitution that they invent a fantasy where the Constitution is still under review. It ain't, it's the law of the land. Live with it and embrace it and love it because it ain't likely to change.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The bottom line is that we can't "try it again" because we were never there. The radical left is so desperate to undermine the Bill of Rights and the Constitution that they invent a fantasy where the Constitution is still under review. It ain't, it's the law of the land. Live with it and embrace it and love it because it ain't likely to change.

The document has changed over and over and over again through amendment and judicial rulings.

 

[Listening]

Federalist 46 is not a rework of the Virginia Plan.

Madison knew that the states or colonies were separated for reasons and that it would be fooling to even think of trying to consolidate them.

Madison would eventually pen the words:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Madisons original assertion was that such a statement was not necessary since EVERYBODY knew this to be the case. Nevertheless, the anti-federalists were insistent on such language.

That became the 10th amendment and is clearly part of the constitution. That his writings in the FEDERALIST PAPERS only support this assertion is gravy.

The fact that he wrote this at all indicates that there were, in fact, powers not delegated to the Federal Government and the country behaved that way for a long long time.

My question had to do with what people felt Madison was saying or implying in the quote from Federalist 46. I am not so sure this was about succession (in fact I would guess it isn't) as much as it is that if the people were fed up, they would have to resort to drawing a line in the sand with regard to the current state of affairs (whatever that might be).

And that states were justified in doing so.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Please tell us just what the Anti-Federalists lost.

The argument of the day for an up or down vote on ratification of the US Constitution?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

the funny thing about all these arguments that anti-federal government conservatives make using the federalist papers as their resource is that there were actually the anti-federalist papers,

which, although less extensive and certainly less talked about, were in fact rebuttals of sorts to the federalist papers and it was that set of papers that more closely reflect the modern conservative view of federal government vs. State government power.

Conservatives are arguing using the wrong material to back up their arguments lol.

(i think the reason for this is that it's clear that back then the argument between federalists and anti-federalists was won by the federalists.)

let me give you a quick example of something from the anti-federalist papers:

this government is to possess absolute and uncontroulable power, legislative, executive and judicial, with respect to every object to which it extends, for by the last clause of section 8th, article 1st, it is declared "that the congress shall have power to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this constitution, in the government of the united states; or in any department or office thereof."

and by the 6th article, it is declared "that this constitution, and the laws of the united states, which shall be made in pursuance thereof, and the treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the united states, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, any thing in the constitution, or law of any state to the contrary notwithstanding."

it appears from these articles that there is no need of any intervention of the state governments, between the congress and the people, to execute any one power vested in the general government, and that the constitution and laws of every state are nullified and declared void, so far as they are or shall be inconsistent with this constitution, or the laws made in pursuance of it, or with treaties made under the authority of the united states. —

the government then, so far as it extends, is a complete one, and not a confederation.

link below

get it? The above is classic conservative objection to both the so-called necessary and proper clause, and the supremacy clause,

objections we still hear today. But they are part of the constitution, yes?

The anti-federalists lost. You conservatives lost. Get over it.

anti-federalist papers: Brutus #1

:d

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Still can't turn on the the TV ?

Now would you please explain your post.

What is out of context and what is wrong with me asking what it is that he might be pointing at ?

Ted Cruz is engaged in the worst type of politics and he speaks to our basest instincts

I don't recall mentioning Ted Cruz anywhere.

Would you please show me what I took out of context.

multiple tabs open on multiple windows?

give it a break mona

 

[Listening]

Do the morons on the left really believe that conservatives want to return to the Articles of Confederation. In reading this thread through again, it sure sounds like it.

Or do the morons on the left really think the constitution justifies King Obama ?

 

[The2ndAmendment]

This is from Madison in Federalist 46.

What do you think he was saying ?

If an act of a particular State, though unfriendly to the national government, be generally popular in that State and should not too grossly violate the oaths of the State officers, it is executed immediately and, of course, by means on the spot and depending on the State alone. The opposition of the federal government, or the interposition of federal officers, would but inflame the zeal of all parties on the side of the State, and the evil could not be prevented or repaired, if at all, without the employment of means which must always be resorted to with reluctance and difficulty.

What is the scale of measurement for when the populace of a State is aligned with their Officers?

It's not when it looks like Athens, Tennessee, 1946

 

[Peach]

This is from Madison in Federalist 46.

What do you think he was saying ?

If an act of a particular State, though unfriendly to the national government, be generally popular in that State and should not too grossly violate the oaths of the State officers, it is executed immediately and, of course, by means on the spot and depending on the State alone. The opposition of the federal government, or the interposition of federal officers, would but inflame the zeal of all parties on the side of the State, and the evil could not be prevented or repaired, if at all, without the employment of means which must always be resorted to with reluctance and difficulty.

Madison: I hold it for a fundamental point that an individual independence of the States, is utterly irreconcileable with the idea of an aggregate sovereignty. I think at the same time that a consolidation of the States into one simple republic is not less unattainable than it would be inexpedient. Let it be tried then whether any middle ground can be taken which will at once support a due supremacy of the national authority, and leave in force the local authorities so far as they can be subordinately useful.
Virginia Plan

There was also the New Jersey Plan, then the Great Compromise.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

The Framers were not of one mind, nor did they speak with one voice, where their views often changed over time.

That the Framers did not presume to have a comprehensive knowledge of liberty is a credit to their wisdom and humility when addressing the serious and vital subject of citizens’ inalienable rights.

Which is why they designed Article V to amend the Constitution. I have yet to see which clause of Article V permits the Judicial Branch to amend the Constitution.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

This is from Madison in Federalist 46.

What do you think he was saying ?

If an act of a particular State, though unfriendly to the national government, be generally popular in that State and should not too grossly violate the oaths of the State officers, it is executed immediately and, of course, by means on the spot and depending on the State alone. The opposition of the federal government, or the interposition of federal officers, would but inflame the zeal of all parties on the side of the State, and the evil could not be prevented or repaired, if at all, without the employment of means which must always be resorted to with reluctance and difficulty.

Folks.....back on track.

What do you think he was saying here ?

[MENTION=32163]Listening[/MENTION]

Well, seeing that Madison goes on to say this in Federalist 46, it is safe to assume that Clayton Jones can shove his Libbie Marxist revisionism up his ass:

the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it. Let us not insult the free and gallant citizens of America with the suspicion, that they would be less able to defend the rights of which they would be in actual possession, than the debased subjects of arbitrary power would be to rescue theirs from the hands of their oppressors.

 

[Peach]

This is from Madison in Federalist 46.

What do you think he was saying ?

If an act of a particular State, though unfriendly to the national government, be generally popular in that State and should not too grossly violate the oaths of the State officers, it is executed immediately and, of course, by means on the spot and depending on the State alone. The opposition of the federal government, or the interposition of federal officers, would but inflame the zeal of all parties on the side of the State, and the evil could not be prevented or repaired, if at all, without the employment of means which must always be resorted to with reluctance and difficulty.

Folks.....back on track.

What do you think he was saying here ?

[MENTION=32163]Listening[/MENTION]

Well, seeing that Madison goes on to say this in Federalist 46, it is safe to assume that Clayton Jones can shove his Libbie Marxist revisionism up his ass:

the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it. Let us not insult the free and gallant citizens of America with the suspicion, that they would be less able to defend the rights of which they would be in actual possession, than the debased subjects of arbitrary power would be to rescue theirs from the hands of their oppressors.

In Federalist #10, Madison argues for a strong central government actually.

To the People of the State of New York:

AMONG the numerous advantages promised by a well constructed Union, none deserves to be more accurately developed than its tendency to break and control the violence of faction. The friend of popular governments never finds himself so much alarmed for their character and fate, as when he contemplates their propensity to this dangerous vice. He will not fail, therefore, to set a due value on any plan which, without violating the principles to which he is attached, provides a proper cure for it. The instability, injustice, and confusion introduced into the public councils, have, in truth, been the mortal diseases under which popular governments have everywhere perished; as they continue to be the favorite and fruitful topics from which the adversaries to liberty derive their most specious declamations. The valuable improvements made by the American constitutions on the popular models, both ancient and modern, cannot certainly be too much admired; but it would be an unwarrantable partiality, to contend that they have as effectually obviated the danger on this side, as was wished and expected. Complaints are everywhere heard from our most considerate and virtuous citizens, equally the friends of public and private faith, and of public and personal liberty, that our governments are too unstable, that the public good is disregarded in the conflicts of rival parties, and that measures are too often decided, not according to the rules of justice and the rights of the minor party, but by the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority. However anxiously we may wish that these complaints had no foundation, the evidence, of known facts will not permit us to deny that they are in some degree true. It will be found, indeed, on a candid review of our situation, that some of the distresses under which we labor have been erroneously charged on the operation of our governments; but it will be found, at the same time, that other causes will not alone account for many of our heaviest misfortunes; and, particularly, for that prevailing and increasing distrust of public engagements, and alarm for private rights, which are echoed from one end of the continent to the other. These must be chiefly, if not wholly, effects of the unsteadiness and injustice with which a factious spirit has tainted our public administrations.

By a faction, I understand a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or a minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adversed to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.

There are two methods of curing the mischiefs of faction: the one, by removing its causes; the other, by controlling its effects.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

In Federalist #10, Madison argues for a strong central government actually.

and? Are you claiming that Madison is an incoherent babbling moron because Federalist 10 and 46 are incompatiable and mutually exclusive?

Here's a hint: They are not mutually exclusive.

Here's a hint: You are trying to claim that they are mutually exclusive, and thus you claiming that Madison in an incoherent babbling moron.

Here's a hint: Madison's intellectual capacity and integrity have been verified over the ages and attested to by all succeeding generations.

Here's a hint: Your intellectual capacity and integrity have not.

Here's a hint: Madison is correct, and you are wrong. Federalist 10 and 46 are not mutually exclusive.

Here's a hint: If you believe that Madison is an incoherent babbling moron, then you must prove, a logical and rigorous manner, that Federalist 10 and Federalist 46 are incompatible.

Fucking liberals man. Sometimes I wonder if you're just conservative trolls

 

[Listening]

Folks.....back on track.

What do you think he was saying here ?

[MENTION=32163]Listening[/MENTION]

Well, seeing that Madison goes on to say this in Federalist 46, it is safe to assume that Clayton Jones can shove his Libbie Marxist revisionism up his ass:

the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it. Let us not insult the free and gallant citizens of America with the suspicion, that they would be less able to defend the rights of which they would be in actual possession, than the debased subjects of arbitrary power would be to rescue theirs from the hands of their oppressors.

In Federalist #10, Madison argues for a strong central government actually.

To the People of the State of New York:

AMONG the numerous advantages promised by a well constructed Union, none deserves to be more accurately developed than its tendency to break and control the violence of faction. The friend of popular governments never finds himself so much alarmed for their character and fate, as when he contemplates their propensity to this dangerous vice. He will not fail, therefore, to set a due value on any plan which, without violating the principles to which he is attached, provides a proper cure for it. The instability, injustice, and confusion introduced into the public councils, have, in truth, been the mortal diseases under which popular governments have everywhere perished; as they continue to be the favorite and fruitful topics from which the adversaries to liberty derive their most specious declamations. The valuable improvements made by the American constitutions on the popular models, both ancient and modern, cannot certainly be too much admired; but it would be an unwarrantable partiality, to contend that they have as effectually obviated the danger on this side, as was wished and expected. Complaints are everywhere heard from our most considerate and virtuous citizens, equally the friends of public and private faith, and of public and personal liberty, that our governments are too unstable, that the public good is disregarded in the conflicts of rival parties, and that measures are too often decided, not according to the rules of justice and the rights of the minor party, but by the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority. However anxiously we may wish that these complaints had no foundation, the evidence, of known facts will not permit us to deny that they are in some degree true. It will be found, indeed, on a candid review of our situation, that some of the distresses under which we labor have been erroneously charged on the operation of our governments; but it will be found, at the same time, that other causes will not alone account for many of our heaviest misfortunes; and, particularly, for that prevailing and increasing distrust of public engagements, and alarm for private rights, which are echoed from one end of the continent to the other. These must be chiefly, if not wholly, effects of the unsteadiness and injustice with which a factious spirit has tainted our public administrations.

By a faction, I understand a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or a minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adversed to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.

There are two methods of curing the mischiefs of faction: the one, by removing its causes; the other, by controlling its effects.

He is arguing for a limited government that has specific responsibilities.

Here is from Federalist 45:

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.

FEW AND DEFINED....

The General Welfare Clause only applied to those specific powers. End of discussion.

But, within those powers...they were to be supreme.

 

[Listening]

Let's bump this puppy.